CP wrote:"And I haven't even mentioned his X and O's skills. Let's just say, he's very Mike Brown on the offensive end of the floor. The Hornets literally ran one single solitary play with the high screen and roll with the center. It worked a lot two years ago simply because of Chris Paul's immense talent and the chemistry between him and Tyson Chandler. But better coached teams like San Antonio and the Lakers eventually exposed their bland offense game plan. "

Excuse me while I vomit. I retract my earlier post where I said I'd be fine with Scott...

I'm still fine with him. He's not perfect, and this is one take. Sounds like much like Izzo would, he could use a solid O X's and O's guy on the bench with him.

In NJ, I recall the whispers of losing the team as well, but also recall that VC is a doosh at the height of his dooshery, and Kidd wasn't a model citizen when the big 3 plan in Dallas imploaded IIRC.

I don't think Scott is great and would still go up and comer with a better resume. But I don't think he's Randy Whittman either.

Would be interested in other takes from Lee or Hnat or thers if they want to come in and play.

jb wrote:In NJ, I recall the whispers of losing the team as well, but also recall that VC is a doosh at the height of his dooshery, and Kidd wasn't a model citizen when the big 3 plan in Dallas imploaded IIRC.

Scott was fired as coach of the Nets in February 2004. Vinsanity was traded to Jersey in November '04.

Scott was fired because the Nets were barely above .500 after two straight Finals appearances. And apparently Nets management had become obsessed with the up-and-coming awesomeness of Lawrence Doogie Howser.

jb wrote:In NJ, I recall the whispers of losing the team as well, but also recall that VC is a doosh at the height of his dooshery, and Kidd wasn't a model citizen when the big 3 plan in Dallas imploaded IIRC.

Scott was fired as coach of the Nets in February 2004. Vinsanity was traded to Jersey in November '04.

Scott was fired because the Nets were barely above .500 after two straight Finals appearances. And apparently Nets management had become obsessed with the up-and-coming awesomeness of Lawrence Doogie Howser.

So Vince joins a team who just made the finals and made them worse? I can't imagine anyone ever making that mistake again.

pup wrote:Maybe this is my point. For the most part, those who have failed at taking the next step? Recruiters. Most better at recruiting than actually coaching. Most with short runs of incredible success and getting out the door. Bouncers. Movers. Stepping stone guys. None of which I believe apply to Izzo. Will he be able to get in player's faces at the NBA level? Hell no. Do I think he can get the same message across without the in your face? Yes. And at the end of the day that is what matters. Is your message one that can win? Can you get your players to buy in? I think his message is quality. And I think he can get it through the heads of his players.

I couldn't agree more with your take Pup...

We talked about this exact same thing at work today...PJ, Pitino, Cal, Shark were all recruiters (and cheaters) and Izzo is not...These guys took over crap teams, Izzo will not...

On a sidenote, I always love hearing how we all bitch about these locals needing tough-ass coaches and owners who care and will get involved and now we're seeing it first hand and we bitch some more...

Let me get this straight:

1. PeeJay's doesn't give a shit2. TMLP is TMLP

So

3. Doh-lan enjoys his toy, but lets the FO make important decisions, which must mean he is the perfect owner?

JB everything I have seen about Scott's offensive x's & o's is a bit bleh, most sites that analyze coaching sets don't give him oodles of praise, I personally used to like him a lot more but the more I watched before he got fired I wasn't as impressed as I previously was. I think the 80's Laker fan in me got caught up in Byron getting a gig.

I'd take him but just exactly how much of an upgrade over MB it would be is debatable I suppose.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

FUDU wrote:I'd take him but just exactly how much of an upgrade over MB it would be is debatable I suppose.

They're both really good at letting their teams tank in the postseason.

I'd be pretty concerned that Byron Scott would be soft on discipline. He was kind of known for running country clubs in New Jersey and New Orleans. In NJ, it worked because he had a master floor general in Jason Kidd running a veteran cast. In NO, he had a young CP3 and not as good of a supporting cast, and it didn't work as well.

Scott would not rein in LBJ at all when it comes to LeIso. That's my belief. The offense would probably stall every bit as much as it did under Mike Brown. And I don't really know where Scott stands on preaching or scheming defense.

Knowing what I now know about LeBron and the Cavs in general, and their apparent ability to lose focus and desire on a dime, I don't know if Scott is a strong enough leader to flip the switch on this team. He might be a little too sympathetic to players, and might not push them hard enough.

I don't know. Maybe I'm dead wrong. But that's the vibe I get on Scott.

jonne99 wrote:What is the style of offense that the michigan state spartans use?

Izzo is known for running a billion set plays. They may run a different set every time down the floor. Although, many of the sets have similar action... if you defend a set a particular way, they run a similar, but different, set to counter how you defend it.

That was the adjustment at Kent State when Stan Heath (a Michigan State guy) came over and replaced Gary Waters. Gary ran some sets, but was primarily a motion offensive coach where players were to be aggressive in transition offense, and then make pass/cut/drive reads off reading each other and the defense. There was much more freedom in Waters' system. Heath's system choreographed most of their offensive movement. Initially players did not like it at all. However, as that year progressed, they bought in and found that the sets Heath had in put KSU's best players in position to do what they do best. It also allowed them to play a shallower bench, which allowed their studs to be on the floor longer.

MSU is consistently physical. They set back-breaking screens. They execute with precision. They are the best rebounding team in the country (or at least he is the best rebounding coach in the country -- often one of the top statistically in nation annually).

All that being said, I don't know how any of that translates to the NBA or this particular team.

"The nose of the bulldog has been slanted backwards so that he can breathe without letting go." -- Winston Churchill

jonne99 wrote:What is the style of offense that the michigan state spartans use?

Izzo is known for running a billion set plays. They may run a different set every time down the floor. Although, many of the sets have similar action... if you defend a set a particular way, they run a similar, but different, set to counter how you defend it.

That was the adjustment at Kent State when Stan Heath (a Michigan State guy) came over and replaced Gary Waters. Gary ran some sets, but was primarily a motion offensive coach where players were to be aggressive in transition offense, and then make pass/cut/drive reads off reading each other and the defense. There was much more freedom in Waters' system. Heath's system choreographed most of their offensive movement. Initially players did not like it at all. However, as that year progressed, they bought in and found that the sets Heath had in put KSU's best players in position to do what they do best. It also allowed them to play a shallower bench, which allowed their studs to be on the floor longer.

MSU is consistently physical. They set back-breaking screens. They execute with precision. They are the best rebounding team in the country (or at least he is the best rebounding coach in the country -- often one of the top statistically in nation annually).

All that being said, I don't know how any of that translates to the NBA or this particular team.

Sometimes seems as if you're a coach yourself OD.

Good analysis.

"It's like dating a woman who hates you so much she will never break up with you, even if you burn down the house every single autumn." ~ Chuck Klosterman on Browns fans relationship with the Browns

1. Return to MSU with a fat new contract, the result of Sparty showing him how much they love him and want him to stay.

2. Return to MSU under his current contract, not making a dime more than what he made when this flirtation with the Cavs began.

3. Come to Cleveland to coach the Cavs.

I suspect 2 and 3 are pretty close, and that (along with hoping for the possibility of #1) are why this process is taking as long as it is. But to me, it's pretty clear that his heart is at MSU. If he wanted to coach the Cavs, he would have taken the job by now.

If I were TMLP, I'd tell him thanks/no thanks and move on.

If it flies, floats, or fornicates, always rent it -- it's cheaper in the long run.

I think that Izzo is considering this offer quite seriously. I don't think this is just an opportunity for Izzo to squeeze more money out of MSU by flirting with an NBA team.

He's been overtured by NBA teams before, but the chance to maybe coach LeBron and the long-time connection to Gilbert (and maybe Cleveland's proximity to Michigan) has caused Izzo to take a long, hard look at this opportunity.

Is he trying to make the Sparty AD office sweat? I don't doubt it. If MSU agreed to rip up his current contract and give him a long-term sweetheart deal with a large pay bump, he'd take it. Option 1 is definitely staying at MSU.

But I don't think the Cavs are just a pawn here. He's coming as close as he's ever come to taking an NBA job. Will he? I don't know. He might get his finger on the "send" button of his cell phone, ready to call Gilbert and accept, and just not be able to do it.

However, if MSU players left a private meeting with Izzo thinking he's going to take the Cavs job, he must have given them a sense of how seriously he's considering this job. I don't think he'd have a reason to lie to his players. Unless he's manipulating a bunch of college kids to put some pathos-drenched, "Please don't let our coach leave!" pressure on the AD's office. In which case, Izzo is a supreme bastard.

papacass wrote:Is he trying to make the Sparty AD office sweat? I don't doubt it. If MSU agreed to rip up his current contract and give him a long-term sweetheart deal with a large pay bump, he'd take it. Option 1 is definitely staying at MSU.

But I don't think the Cavs are just a pawn here. He's coming as close as he's ever come to taking an NBA job. Will he? I don't know. He might get his finger on the "send" button of his cell phone, ready to call Gilbert and accept, and just not be able to do it.

And that's why I don't want Tom Izzo as coach of the Cavs. I want a guy who wants to be here ... not somebody who felt obligated just because TMLP backed a Brinks truck up to his house.

However, if MSU players left a private meeting with Izzo thinking he's going to take the Cavs job, he must have given them a sense of how seriously he's considering this job. I don't think he'd have a reason to lie to his players. Unless he's manipulating a bunch of college kids to put some pathos-drenched, "Please don't let our coach leave!" pressure on the AD's office. In which case, Izzo is a supreme bastard.

I would not put that past Izzo for a moment. The guy seems like a super attention whore. (Which makes him the perfect coach for LBJ, but that's another issue.)

If it flies, floats, or fornicates, always rent it -- it's cheaper in the long run.

waborat wrote:But honestly DS, do any of these guys really "want" to be here?

Do any of them really "want" to coach this team without Kingie?

It's a paycheck to all of them...

I'm sure most of them would trade places with Izzo any day of the week to be in the situation he's in versus either being unemployed or talking basketball?

I'm not asking the question in some philosophical sense. Every job is a paycheck, when you get down to it. I like my job, but guess how long I'd stay here if they told me I would be working for free from now on.

But all the signs are that Izzo really wants to stay at MSU, and the only reason he's considering Cleveland is because of the higher paycheck. If you can point me to a similar situation, in ANY field ... in which a person really wanted to be in place A, but chose place B purely because of the money ... and then it worked out for the best in place B ... I'd like to see it. As I said before: if Izzo really wanted to be here, he'd already be here. He would have accepted the job last week when it was offered. I'm not criticizing the guy for being torn, or for having strong allegiances to MSU. Just calling it as I see it.

BTW, this discussion is all a sideline to the issue of whether Izzo can win here ... and history overwhelmingly says he can't. College coaching is a training ground for pro coaching in the same way that being a bike mechanic qualifies you to work in the pits at Indy.

If it flies, floats, or fornicates, always rent it -- it's cheaper in the long run.

waborat wrote:But honestly DS, do any of these guys really "want" to be here?

Do any of them really "want" to coach this team without Kingie?

It's a paycheck to all of them...

I'm sure most of them would trade places with Izzo any day of the week to be in the situation he's in versus either being unemployed or talking basketball?

I'm not asking the question in some philosophical sense. Every job is a paycheck, when you get down to it. I like my job, but guess how long I'd stay here if they told me I would be working for free from now on.

But all the signs are that Izzo really wants to stay at MSU, and the only reason he's considering Cleveland is because of the higher paycheck. If you can point me to a similar situation, in ANY field ... in which a person really wanted to be in place A, but chose place B purely because of the money ... and then it worked out for the best in place B ... I'd like to see it. As I said before: if Izzo really wanted to be here, he'd already be here. He would have accepted the job last week when it was offered. I'm not criticizing the guy for being torn, or for having strong allegiances to MSU. Just calling it as I see it.

BTW, this discussion is all a sideline to the issue of whether Izzo can win here ... and history overwhelmingly says he can't. College coaching is a training ground for pro coaching in the same way that being a bike mechanic qualifies you to work in the pits at Indy.

If it was about $$$$, he would have taken Phil Knight's phone call a couple of months back.

If Bron inks elswhere in July, the Cavs will be lucky to convince Mike Malone to stay on and oversee the teardown and rebuild. Nobody wants to be here without LeBron. Outside of cash, all Gilbert can sell a coaching candidate on is the possibility of LeBron staying. Beyond that, there are no other selling points that a coaching candidate will buy.

As it is, Windy has reported that the departure of Ferry has put a few extra speed bumps between the Cavs and other coaching candidates. It's an added layer of instability.

Byron Scott is an L.A. guy and would just as soon take over the Clips, or wait on the Lakers job, than hold out for Gilbert's offer and Bron's decision. So as a fallback for Izzo, Scott might not be.

I don't know if Gilbert is really going to find a coach whose heart is leading him here. Chances are, he's going to have to outbid other teams for coaches who are thinking "All things equal, I'd rather go/stay elsewhere. But man, the Cavs are offering a ton of money."

papacass wrote:If Bron inks elswhere in July, the Cavs will be lucky to convince Mike Malone to stay on and oversee the teardown and rebuild. Nobody wants to be here without LeBron. Outside of cash, all Gilbert can sell a coaching candidate on is the possibility of LeBron staying. Beyond that, there are no other selling points that a coaching candidate will buy.

I get that it's Cleveland and all, but I'm not sure I completely understand this. New Jersey got Avery Johnson. What did they have to offer? "We got a team that won 12 games last year and the third pick in a two player draft. Oh, and you get to play your home games in Newark for two years (which is about how long your coaching life expectancy is anyway)." What else? "We've got tons of cap space, but LeBron and Wade ain't comin' here, nor Bosh, but maybe we can add Joe Johnson or Carlos Boozer." How attractive is that? If nobody's going to want to coach in Cleveland for Dan Gilbert who has a proven track record of being willing to spend whatever it takes, how does Indiana have a coach? Or Atlanta? Or New Orleans? Detroit? Milwaukee? I'm not saying that a high profile guy like Izzo would take it sans LBJ, but nobody?

2) One of Scott's biggest problems in New Orleans was that once his vets started failing he was loyal to them instead of starting the rebuild/youth movement. That was the crux of his split w/ managment.

3) Up until his last season in New Orleans Scott's O's were among the league leaders in scoring efficiency. Sure, the P&R was the base play but let's not pretend like a freaking P & R offense based around Paul's talent is a bad thing (again, Mike Brown and LBJ decided we didn't need to run Jameson P&R's in the second round, which was infuriating).

4) Scott, when brought in in New Jersey was respected by the players but also turned the culture there to one of discipline and work. He made it clear that he was taking over a sloppy basketball team and they all needed to clean their acts up and gets focused/disciplined. He brought the same disciplined mentality to New orleans (http://www.hornets247.com/blog/2009/05/ ... n-scott-go).

6) Izzo, as a college coach, runs 2 million sets and demands that all of his players know how to execute those sets perfectly, but the way he coaches is centered around running his system correct or punching his players in the face. In the NBA, a Scouting heavy and reactionary league (from a coaching perspective) I am terrified of his ability to adjust to a more reactionary style. Roker's D's are a great example of a coach that could succeed by running his system and then failed because he sucked at adapting his system on the fly. College coaches live in a world void of adapting on the fly and the elite programs focus on inflicting their will no matter what. In some way Izzo reminds me of a High School football coach that makes the state playoffs every year just because his teams run his o better than anyone else, but once he runs into the big dogs in the semis teams figure out his o and beat his ass. I cannot see Izzo being a great NBA coach, though I may be wrong.

7) I forget the rest I wanted to drop in this drive-by (don't worry, I'm not back), beyond that you guys just need to work on that whole fact checking thing. Before OD and Hnat dropped in here you were working on the worst thread about coaching I've ever seen because nothing was dropped beyond deep inaccuracies like "Paul tried to run out Scott"

Bottom line, if you make a decision that is based solely on money, you'll probably end up regretting it. In this case, if Izzo takes the Cavs job based solely on the money, I'm concerned we'll all end up regretting it. His heart won't really be in it, and he won't put out quite the effort that he would if he were truly committed.

(BTW, I rubber-stamp Eye's point #6 above as why I am independently leery of Izzo, even if he decided to work for the Cavs for minimum wage.)

If it flies, floats, or fornicates, always rent it -- it's cheaper in the long run.

5) Ziner is a cock gobbler (actually I left out that Scott has had his own being stubborn and not reactionary issues in the past, but one would hope he would have learned from making said mistake twice already, whereas Izzo has never even had the chance to coach in a reactionary league and is pretty much universally known as a guy whose biggest strength is yelling a lot and running his system, whereas Scott has proven he could be an egotistical prick at heart and still get along w/ a super star in Paul).

daddywags wrote:I get that it's Cleveland and all, but I'm not sure I completely understand this. New Jersey got Avery Johnson. What did they have to offer? "We got a team that won 12 games last year and the third pick in a two player draft. Oh, and you get to play your home games in Newark for two years (which is about how long your coaching life expectancy is anyway)." What else? "We've got tons of cap space, but LeBron and Wade ain't comin' here, nor Bosh, but maybe we can add Joe Johnson or Carlos Boozer." How attractive is that? If nobody's going to want to coach in Cleveland for Dan Gilbert who has a proven track record of being willing to spend whatever it takes, how does Indiana have a coach? Or Atlanta? Or New Orleans? Detroit? Milwaukee? I'm not saying that a high profile guy like Izzo would take it sans LBJ, but nobody?

The Cavs aren't going to get a quality and/or experienced coach without LeBron. So whoever they hire will be a "nobody" at the time the Cavs would hire him.

Avery Johnson is not what I'd consider a quality coaching hire. He's Nellie's Frankenstein. He oversaw the biggest choke job in playoff history (67 wins, first-round exit) one year after arguably the biggest choke job in Finals history.

I don't think any decent coaching candidate is going to look at the situation in Cleveland sans LeBron and say "Well, that owner has a proven track record of spending. That's a desirable job." They're going to see "Cleveland. Without LeBron. And a rookie GM that I will either have to answer to or collaborate with for the duration of a rebuilding project. Ick."

Pappa - If you put Avery Johnson in the "crappy coaches" bucket (a point with which I agree, by the way), then my point will be the same as it's been throughout this drama - this is a horrible year to be looking for an NBA head coach because all the possible candidates pretty much suck. I get that some people think that Phil Jackson is going to leave his girlfriend and bring his broken body from the west coast to the north coast just because we want him. And I get that some people think Izzo will be a bang-up, championship winning, head coach from day one in the NBA. And I even get that some folks like Byron Scott (who hasn't won anything) or Larry Brown (who isn't going anywhere) or - God forbid - Jeff Van Gundy. But you've gotta admit, that's a pretty awful list after Phil.

Anyone else a little irked that LeBron won't even talk to Izzo. Obviously he doesn't have to tell him his plans, but I am not sure how anyone would interpret as meddling by simply talking to him. I understand he wants to do his thing, but he also should show some common courtesy to Gilbert, Izzo, the organization and the fans.

Ziner wrote:Anyone else a little irked that LeBron won't even talk to Izzo. Obviously he doesn't have to tell him his plans, but I am not sure how anyone would interpret as meddling by simply talking to him. I understand he wants to do his thing, but he also should show some common courtesy to Gilbert, Izzo, the organization and the fans.

It's annoying how he's going about a lot of things. But one of his flunkies surely is passing along LBJ's thoughts. Those 'high level sources' are getting that info right out of 23's camp for sure.

Forget Izzo vs. Scott. This thread should be all about analyzing Mike Woodson, cuz when LeBron bolts that is who we get. Oh, and Gilbert is going to sell the team back to Gund. Gund will rehire Paxson, get an assurance from Boozer that he will sign, while other players are signing Boozer will reconsider, and by that time we are left offering the max to Bobby Simmons. We will then suck according to plan, but trade our 1st round pick for Eddy Curry, then allow the trade exemption to expire. After that the team moves and Cleveland burns to the ground.

Everyone dies.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

daddywags wrote:Pappa - If you put Avery Johnson in the "crappy coaches" bucket (a point with which I agree, by the way), then my point will be the same as it's been throughout this drama - this is a horrible year to be looking for an NBA head coach because all the possible candidates pretty much suck. I get that some people think that Phil Jackson is going to leave his girlfriend and bring his broken body from the west coast to the north coast just because we want him. And I get that some people think Izzo will be a bang-up, championship winning, head coach from day one in the NBA. And I even get that some folks like Byron Scott (who hasn't won anything) or Larry Brown (who isn't going anywhere) or - God forbid - Jeff Van Gundy. But you've gotta admit, that's a pretty awful list after Phil.

It's never a "good year" to look for coaches, because there are only a half dozen (if that) high quality coaches out there and most of them stay with their teams forever.

I know more about pizza than you. Much more in fact. - Cerebral_DownTime

Orenthal wrote:Forget Izzo vs. Scott. This thread should be all about analyzing Mike Woodson, cuz when LeBron bolts that is who we get. Oh, and Gilbert is going to sell the team back to Gund. Gund will rehire Paxson, get an assurance from Boozer that he will sign, while other players are signing Boozer will reconsider, and by that time we are left offering the max to Bobby Simmons. We will then suck according to plan, but trade our 1st round pick for Eddy Curry, then allow the trade exemption to expire. After that the team moves and Cleveland burns to the ground.

DiminishingSkills wrote:If you can point me to a similar situation, in ANY field ... in which a person really wanted to be in place A, but chose place B purely because of the money ... and then it worked out for the best in place B ... I'd like to see it.

Manny Ramirez?

Then again, not really sure if he remembers playing in Cleveland?

Seriously, I know what you're mean and it usually doesn't work out...Although for these high priced entertainers, it's gotta be a little easier knowing that you're not going to be there for any length of time unless you find the perfect reclining chair in said town...

DiminishingSkills wrote:BTW, this discussion is all a sideline to the issue of whether Izzo can win here ... and history overwhelmingly says he can't.

Bottom line, no one knows the answer to this...

If pretty much the same team is here next season then anyone will be able to win here...

Hell, even Roker won 2/3rds of his games...

Damn, guess I just stated that anyone would have success? Eh, bring on Woodson, JVG or Jackson

Orenthal wrote:Forget Izzo vs. Scott. This thread should be all about analyzing Mike Woodson, cuz when LeBron bolts that is who we get. Oh, and Gilbert is going to sell the team back to Gund. Gund will rehire Paxson, get an assurance from Boozer that he will sign, while other players are signing Boozer will reconsider, and by that time we are left offering the max to Bobby Simmons. We will then suck according to plan, but trade our 1st round pick for Eddy Curry, then allow the trade exemption to expire. After that the team moves and Cleveland burns to the ground.

Everyone dies.

What? No mention of Sasha? Amon Ones?

"The nose of the bulldog has been slanted backwards so that he can breathe without letting go." -- Winston Churchill

papacass wrote:Avery Johnson is not what I'd consider a quality coaching hire. He's Nellie's Frankenstein. He oversaw the biggest choke job in playoff history (67 wins, first-round exit) one year after arguably the biggest choke job in Finals history.

I'm not sure that Avery's story is written...

Is it really fair to label him that way, considering the Mavs had started perfecting the choke job well before he got there, and have continued their clinic on the choke since he left?

I'm not sure you have solid data points to make that assessment, Cass.

You might be right, but I guess I'll have to him outside the mavs organization first.